al-Muzzammil 73:20 — The lightening of the ruling

"Surely your Lord knows that you stand for nearly two thirds of the night, and half of it, and a third of it — and so does a group of those who are with you. It is God who measures the night and the day. He knew that you could not count it, and He turned to you. So recite what is easy for you of the Qurʾān. He knew that there would be sick people among you; and others travelling in the land seeking of God's bounty; and others fighting in the way of God. So recite what is easy for you of it. And keep up the prayer, and give the zakāt, and lend God a beautiful loan. Whatever good you send ahead for yourselves, you will find it with God — better and greater in reward. And ask forgiveness of God. Surely God is forgiving, merciful."

This is one of the longest verses in the Qurʾān and takes up nearly half as much space as the whole rest of the sūra. The ruling built up over nineteen verses is readjusted in this single verse.

The verse has to be taken piece by piece.

One matter must be settled first.

This disagreement is recorded in the classical sources and is not settled. I do not impose a preference and I issue no definite ruling on the dating. This much I can say: the function of the verse does not change whichever dating we accept — the lightening of a ruling is what is being described.

The verse opens not with an accusation but with an observation.

And what is observed is that the addressee has been carrying out the command in excess: nearly two thirds of the night, half of it, a third of it.

That is, the lightening does not come upon a failing. On the contrary: it comes after something done in excess.

This is the most striking side of the verse, and it is usually skipped. As the rule is loosened, what is given as the ground of the loosening is not the addressee's laxity but his scrupulousness.

أَدْنَىٰ — an elative from the root د-ن-و: "nearer", "less". The word dunyā is from the same root (the nearest one).

Three measures are enumerated:

And this is the range set in the second and third verses in its realised form. There it said "half of it, a little less, a little more". Here what was actually done is enumerated: sometimes near two thirds, sometimes half, sometimes a third.

That is, the addressee has moved about at both ends of the range given.

For the first time in the sūra it is said that there are others alongside the addressee.

طَآئِفَة — from the root ط-و-ف: those who move about in a circuit, a cluster. Ṭawāf is from the same root.

"A group of those who are with you."

And the word order is careful: alladhīna maʿaka — "those who are with you", and out of them a ṭāʾifa — "a part of them".

That is, those carrying out the command are not all but some of those around the addressee.

This detail is important. The verse does not draw an ideal picture; it records a real distribution. Some do it, some do not. And after this the ruling is lightened.

Root: ق-د-ر. The three branches of meaning of this root — measure/determination, worth/honour, straitness — were treated in detail in al-Qadr; it was also taken up in ʿAbasa in the context of fa-qaddarahū. I do not repeat it here.

The core recorded there: the most basic sense of the root is to measure, to determine an amount; and taqdīr is "determining by measure".

Here the position of the sentence explains the choice of the root.

For nineteen verses the addressee has been trying to measure the night: half, or a little less, or a little more. And now a sentence comes in between: it is God who measures the night and the day.

The function of the sentence runs in two directions:

1. It shows the source of the measuring. The one who sets the limits of what is divided is another. 2. It prepares the next sentence. The one who sets the measure also knows that the measure cannot be met.

And the observation recorded in al-Qadr looks directly here: "To know the worth of a thing is to give it the right measure… value is the result of measuring rightly." Here the one who gives the right measure opens room for the human being to set his own measure.

The turning point of the verse.

Root: ح-ص-ي. And the concrete sense of this root opens the word onto something quite different.

حَصَى (ḥaṣā) — small pebbles. This is what stands at the centre of the root.

أَحْصَىٰ (aḥṣā), in Form IV: to count with pebbles, to reckon up, to calculate exactly.

Because in an environment where written numerals were not widespread, counting was done with stones: one pebble for each unit. The word is the name of that practice.

So iḥṣāʾ is not simple counting; it is counting unit by unit, without omission, with a full accounting.

Its uses in the Qurʾān confirm this:

• "God has counted what they did, and they have forgotten it" (al-Mujādala 58/6).
• "…and He has encompassed everything in number" (al-Jinn 72/28).
• "If you tried to count God's favour, you could not count it" (Ibrāhīm 14/34; al-Naḥl 16/18) — lā tuḥṣūhā. The same negative pattern.

And the last example looks directly at this verse: there what cannot be counted is the favour, here it is the night. The same verb, the same negation.

To what does the pronoun (-hū) refer? Two explanations in the classical commentaries:

1. To the night. You cannot calculate the parts of the night exactly — there is no clock, no instrument of measurement. 2. To the measure / to the time in general. You cannot meet the amount commanded.

The first explanation has directly to do with the conditions of the period and is realistic.

Consider: how is a person to know when two thirds of the night is up? There is no clock. The length of the night changes with the season. The hour of waking cannot be predicted.

That is, the measure commanded was a measure that could not be measured. And this was a technical impossibility; not a laxity.

It is transmitted in the classical sources that those who tried to carry out this command, being unable to know how much of the night had passed, stood for more than was required and were strained by it. Since I am not sure to which source I should ascribe this report, I give no name; but the explanation fits the wording of the text: the verse does not say "you did not do it", it says "you could not count it".

This expression needs careful attention, because the usual rendering carries a misleading association.

Root: ت-و-ب. Its concrete sense: to turn, to come back, to return.

And the verb is used in two directions:

• تَابَ إِلَى اللَّه — the servant turns to God. This is repentance.
• تَابَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ… — God turns to the servant. This is acceptance and turning towards.

In the verse it is the second: tāba ʿalaykum.

That is, the expression does not mean "He forgave you" or "He accepted your repentance"; it means "He turned towards you", "He turned to you". And what it means in the context is clear: He rearranged the ruling in accordance with your condition.

The same structure occurs in the Qurʾān in the context of Adam as well: "…so his Lord turned to him" (al-Baqara 2/37) — fa-tāba ʿalayh. There too the verb is used with the particle ʿalā and in the same direction.

Why was this word chosen?

There is no sin in view. The verse itself gives as its ground not a failing but an impossibility. Why then is the language of repentance used?

Several explanations are given in the classical commentaries:

I do not impose a preference. But I want to record this, as my own reading:

The choice of the verb emphasises where the lightening comes from. The ruling changes not at the human being's request but by the movement of the one who laid it down. The human being did not bargain, did not ask permission, did not offer an excuse. The turning came from the other side.

And this is the stance of the whole verse: the lightening is presented not as a concession but as a turning towards.

Root: ي-س-ر. This root was treated in detail in al-Inshirāḥ in its contrast with ʿusr (and a comparison with al-Ṭalāq 65/7 was made there); in al-Aʿlā it was taken up in the pattern nuyassiruka li'l-yusrā, and the fine observation recorded there was this: the object of the verb is not the work but the person — "it is not the work that is made easy, but the person."

Here the verb is تَيَسَّرَ, in Form V and intransitive: "it came easy, it became easy."

And it has no subject — or rather, its subject is unspecified. Mā tayassara — "what becomes easy", "what comes easy to you".

This is the most flexible point in the verse: the measure of ease is left to the person. No amount is given, no number of pages, no length of time.

This is the link that has to be made in order to grasp the sūra as a whole.

Four changes at once: the addressee widened, the condition of manner fell away, the emphasis fell away, and a note of "ease" was placed on the amount.

And note: the command itself did not fall away. The command to recite stands. What fell away is the rigidity placed on the measure of the command.

This shows how the lightening works: the act is preserved, the measure is made flexible.

The expression fa'qraʾū mā tayassara occurs twice in the verse:

1. "He knew that you could not count it, and He turned to you — so recite what is easy for you of the Qurʾān." 2. After the three excuses are enumerated: "so recite what is easy for you of it."

That is, the lightening is tied to two separate grounds and after each ground the same conclusion is repeated:

The second repetition does not reinforce the first; it arrives at the same place through another door.

The most striking sentence in the verse and perhaps in the whole sūra.

The primary sense of the verb ضَرَبَ is "to strike". But when it is joined with فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ it becomes a settled idiom in Arabic: to set out, to travel, to go about for a living.

The explanation the lexicographers give: the traveller advances striking his foot against the ground. The English "to pound the roads" carries the same picture.

Its uses in the Qurʾān:

• "When you travel in the land there is no blame on you for shortening the prayer" (al-Nisāʾ 4/101).
• "…for the poor who have devoted themselves to the way of God and cannot travel about in the land…" (al-Baqara 2/273) — lā yastaṭīʿūna ḍarban fi'l-arḍ.

ابْتَغَىٰ — from the root ب-غ-ي, in Form VIII: to seek, to ask for, to go after.

فَضْل — from the root ف-ض-ل: what is in excess, what is over; a gift, a bounty.

And this construct is used in a settled way in the Qurʾān for "trade and earning":

• "When the prayer has been performed, disperse in the land and seek of God's bounty" (al-Jumuʿa 62/10). Returning to work after the Friday prayer.
• "There is no blame on you for seeking a bounty from your Lord" (al-Baqara 2/198). About trading during the season of the pilgrimage.
• "…and your sleeping by night and by day and your seeking of His bounty are among His signs" (al-Rūm 30/23). The same construct occurs in the context of night and day at al-Isrāʾ 17/12 and al-Qaṣaṣ 28/73 as well.

So "to seek of God's bounty" is the expression the Qurʾān uses for earning. And note: earning is named "God's bounty". What a person earns himself is named as a gift.

Now let us look at the structure of the sentence.

The three groups are set out in the same sentence, with the same conjunction (wa ākharūna… wa ākharūna), in the same grammatical pattern. No difference of degree, no order of priority, no distinction of value is placed between them.

And there are two things standing side by side in the list:

• Setting out for trade.
• Fighting in the way of God.

This is a word order that needs pausing over.

Because in religious literature these two acts are generally treated on very different levels. One is positioned as a worldly occupation, the other as the highest sacrifice. Here the two are named in the same list of excuses.

And the order is more striking still: trade comes first, war second.

Comments have been made on this order in the classical commentaries; some tie it to those engaged in trade being far more numerous. This is a reasonable explanation.

But there is no need to look at the order to see what the verse is doing; the list itself is enough. All three situations are tied to the same conclusion: fa'qraʾū mā tayassara minh.

That is, the verse says: among the things that prevent rising in the night, sickness, trade and war are in the same category. All three are conditions; all three are excuses; in all three the measure is lightened.

What can be drawn from this and what cannot must be separated.

What the verse says: all three situations are sufficient reason for the measure of worship to be lightened.

What the verse does not say: that trade and war are equal in value. The list makes no ranking of value; it enumerates excuses. That two things are in the same list of excuses does not show that they are of the same value.

But it does show something, and I record this as my own reading: the pursuit of a livelihood counts, in the eyes of the verse, as a valid excuse. That is, to say "I was engaged in trade" is a ground accepted against the measure of worship.

This says something important about how religious life is constituted. Because an alternative construction was possible, and has been built in many traditions throughout history: a construction in which worship invalidates the rest of life. In that construction working, earning, keeping a family — these are obstacles in the way of worship, and to the extent that they are obstacles they are faults.

The verse does not build this construction. It records work not as an obstacle but as a condition — like sickness, like war.

And when the command of tabattul (73/8) is recalled, one sees how striking this is: the same sūra says in its eighth verse "cut yourself off and turn", and in its twentieth verse counts a trading journey as an excuse. The two together show what tabattul is not — the inference recorded in the discussion of the sūra's eighth verse is confirmed here by the text itself.

This verse is one of the clearest examples in the Qurʾān of a principle: the ruling is adjusted to the capacity of the one addressed.

The Qurʾān formulates this principle openly in other places:

• "God does not burden anyone beyond what he can bear" (al-Baqara 2/286).
• "God wants ease for you, He does not want hardship" (al-Baqara 2/185) — treated in al-Inshirāḥ.
• "He has laid no hardship on you in religion" (al-Ḥajj 22/78).
• "So guard against God as much as you are able" (al-Taghābun 64/16).

And the particular thing about al-Muzzammil is this: here the principle is not declared as a rule; it is applied. A ruling is laid down, then readjusted within the same sūra.

That is, the text does not describe the principle — it shows it.

After the lightening, new commands come. And this shows what the lightening is not: not the removal of the load but the change of its place.

The concept of iqāma was treated in al-Baqara at 2/3, and the distinction recorded there was this: adāʾ is the discharging of a debt — it is done and finished; iqāma is keeping something standing — it requires continuity and upkeep.

And there is a weaving of words here: the sūra had begun with قُمِ ("rise", 73/2). Now it is bound up with أَقِيمُوا۟ ("keep standing"). The same root, at the two ends of the sūra.

The first is the rising of the body, the second the keeping standing of a structure. And the first is to a single person, the second to a community.

That is, the sūra opens with one person rising in the night and closes with a community keeping up the prayer. I record this weaving as my own reading.

Root: ز-ك-و. Its concrete sense: to increase, to grow, to be blessed with growth; and from here to be purified, to be cleansed.

It was taken up in ʿAbasa in the context of yazzakkā; the root was also treated in al-Shams and al-Layl.

The link between the two senses of the root is striking: to increase and to be purified. The explanation of the lexicographers: when a thing is cleared of its excess it grows soundly — like a pruned tree.

And zakāt carries both senses at once: the taking out of a part of one's wealth is named both a purifying and a making to grow.

The boldest expression in the sūra.

Root: ق-ر-ض. And its concrete sense is unexpectedly sharp: to cut, to cut with shears, to snap off.

• مِقْرَاض (miqrāḍ) — shears.
• قَرَضَ (qaraḍa) — he cut, he bit off. It is used of a mouse: it gnawed, it cut.
• قَرْض (qarḍ) — a loan, a debt.

What is the link? The explanation of the lexicographers is direct: to lend is for a person to cut a piece off his own property and set it aside. The piece cut off will come back, but for the moment it has been cut off.

The Turkish word "kredi" ("credit") is from another root; but the Arabic borrowings "karz" and "karz-ı hasen" alive in Turkish are from this one.

"Lend God."

At first sight this expression is strange, and its strangeness looks deliberate. A loan is what the one in need takes. The expression sets up the relation between creditor and debtor — and on the debtor's side stands God.

The Qurʾān uses this expression in many places: al-Baqara 2/245, al-Māʾida 5/12, al-Ḥadīd 57/11, 57/18, al-Taghābun 64/17, al-Muzzammil 73/20.

And in the classical commentaries the function of the expression is explained thus: it is a language of encouragement and guarantee. It states that what is given is not lost, that it is entered in the record, that it will come back.

An observation, as my own reading. What the expression does may be to change the addressee of the act of giving. What is given to the poor is not counted as given to the poor; the record is entered elsewhere. And this has a consequence: the giver expects no return, no obligation, no thanks from the receiver — because that is not the party to whom he is creditor.

I record this reading as an inference. But it fits the observation made in al-Māʿūn: there the reason for the orphan and the poor being chosen was recorded as "they cannot give anything in return".

And in the next sūra the exact opposite attitude will be censured: wa lā tamnun tastakthir — "do not give in order to get more" (74/6). The two sūras treat the two faces of the act of giving.

Qarḍan ḥasanā — "a beautiful loan."

In the tenth verse there was hajran jamīlā. Here it is qarḍan ḥasanā.

Two different words, both meaning "beautiful". And both specify the quality of an act — not the act itself.

The lexicographers record that there is a fine difference in Arabic between jamīl and ḥasan (jamīl looks more to appearance, ḥasan more to fittingness and goodness), but the difference is not absolute and in use they overlap. I draw no ruling here from the two having been chosen separately.

In the classical commentaries what a "beautiful loan" is is explained thus: given with a willing heart, without reproach, without expectation of return, from lawful property. None of this is written in the verse; it is drawn from the context and from other verses of the Qurʾān.

Root: ق-د-م. To go in front, to advance. Qadam (foot), qadīm (that which comes before), taqdīm (bringing forward), muqaddima.

تُقَدِّمُوا۟ — Form II: to send in front, to send on ahead.

The picture is clear: a person sends his baggage on ahead before setting out on a journey. The verse describes good deeds like that baggage.

The Qurʾān uses this pattern in many places: "Every soul will know what it has sent ahead and what it has left behind" (al-Infiṭār 82/5); "On that day the human being will be told what he sent ahead and what he left behind" (al-Qiyāma 75/13); "Let everyone look to what he has sent ahead for tomorrow" (al-Ḥashr 59/18). The pattern was treated in al-Infiṭār.

A point of word order.

The verse does not say "send for God's sake". It says "send ahead for yourselves".

The act of giving is named as a transaction in the giver's own favour. And this must be read together with the expression "lend God" in the preceding sentence: the loan is given to God, the benefit returns to the giver.

"You will find it with God — better and greater in reward."

Two elatives: khayran (better) and aʿẓama ajrā (greater in reward).

And when it says "better", better than what? The verse does not say. The classical explanation: better than the thing given itself. That is, what comes back is more than what was sent.

This fits the principle of multiplication treated in al-Baqara at 2/261 (even if that verse falls outside the scope of this file, the pattern is known); I do not go into its details here.

Root: غ-ف-ر. Its concrete sense: to cover, to close over, to overlay.

• مِغْفَر (mighfar) — the iron helmet worn on the head in war. The Turkish miğfer is this word.
• غُفْرَان (ghufrān) — covering, forgiving.
• اسْتَغْفَرَ (istaghfara) — Form X: to ask for forgiveness.

And the concrete sense of the root says something here.

The sūra began by calling to a man who was covered: al-muzzammil. And it ends by asking to be covered: istaghfirū.

In both there is a covering. But its direction and its source differ:

The sūra takes the person out of covering himself and brings him to asking to be covered.

I record this reading as my inference. I claim no kinship between the two roots (ز-م-ل and غ-ف-ر) — the roots are entirely separate; the link made is conceptual and it is my own classification.

And one more observation.

The verse lightened the ruling. It made the measure flexible. It accepted the excuses. It gave new and more practicable commands.

And as the last command it placed the asking of forgiveness.

That is, the easing does not end with "now everything is in order". It is assumed that even the eased state cannot be lived without shortfall.

I record this as an observation; the verse does not make this justification.

The last sentence of the sūra and — as recorded above — the place where the sound structure of the sūra breaks.

The -īlā sound that ran through nineteen verses is let go here. The sūra ends with one of the most widespread closing patterns of the Qurʾān.

Both attributes are in the intensive form: ghafūr (the faʿūl pattern — much forgiving), raḥīm (the faʿīl pattern).

And the difference between raḥmān and raḥīm was treated in al-Fātiḥa; I do not repeat it here.